Maciek Fijalkowski wrote: > Niko Matsakis wrote: > >>> As well as some of your commits have broken JS tests. I'm not totally >>> convinced that my attempt (returning void) is better than your (not >>> returning void), but please at least run JS tests and check if nothing >>> is broken. If you brake something, but you're totally convinced that >>> I'm >>> the one who should fix something please at least contact me, I would be >>> happy to sort things out. >> >> My sincere apologies! I was trying to be careful not to break >> things, but evidently not careful enough. I will make sure to run >> the JS tests in the future --- I didn't in the past because I assumed >> I did not have the required software. >> >> Regarding the change to get_ and set_field to make it ignore Void >> arguments, I ported that from the CLI code --- I mentioned it on IRC >> and people thought it was a good idea. I don't really understand too >> well whether it is necessary or not, but I am afraid that your change >> might break the CLI tests, as previously they relied upon their own >> version of the GetField MetaVM op which *did* ignore the Void >> operations. >> >> Again, my apologies for breaking things. :)
I think it happened to everybody at one point. > Sorry for being too agressive :-] Actually I do agree with you and I'll > make JS working that way. Just please inform me each time you change > something which breaks tests explicitely. Well, actually your fix broke the cli tests :-). Cheers, Carl Friedrich _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
